03-17-2018, 04:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
I was joking about the quit claim, but Kalakoa's point is valid. The county doesn't show my name or your name or anyone else's as owners of the road lot. County shows it to be owned by a company that was dissolved decades ago. To be accurate and fair, the county should be listing all 2400 property owners as road lot owners, updated each time a property changes hands. Cumbersome, yes. But they don't care that they screwed us with the sweetheart deal for the developers, why should we care if they screwed themselves in the process?
You said "No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA", I simply pointed out the law that says you can. The '92 judgment did not give OLCA the right to base membership on mandatory fees, thus making membership mandatory. This violates the statutes.
Is OLCA's primary purpose to maintain the roads? The Charter of Incorporation doesn't even mention the roads in the list of purposes, so...is this fraud against the state?
Our bylaws, in many more ways than stated here, are in conflict with state laws, our Charter of incorporation, and the '92 judgment (another can of worms). This makes collections extremely risky and it's all a product of the county violating its own laws with the sweetheart deal 59 years ago.
I got my Group W newsletter yesterday. I was happy to see that they are skeptical of Joy's bill, and are discussing the county's responsibility/liability. Quite different from previous boards, so good for them.
Agree that the original subdivision approved by Planning back in 1959 was short sighted, to say the least. I do however, believe that OCLA’s primary purpose is to maintain the roads. And the 92 judgement gave OCLA the right to assess fees from anyone who owned a portion of the "roads lot." So you "joined" when you closed on your property, which was a voluntary act on your part. That’s how it would be argued if you pressed the point. No statute violated on their side.
I also agree with you that Planning should be required to update their records with regard to the "roads lot" but they aren’t and that doesn’t change anything else. You still voluntarily bought your Orchidland property.
I got my Wirick newsletter too and was disappointed that they made no mention of the dispute or various means of remedy currently in the works. They seem to be claiming legitimacy prematurely. A transparent, up-front assessment would have been more welcome and would have given me more confidence that they actually have my interests at heart. As of this writing, I remain unconvinced.